VGLX Returns in October With Two-Day Event in Mississauga, Ontario
VGLX 2026 will be home to the Electric Clash tournament for the Tekken World Tour 2026 this October.
EU Investigates Corning for Potential Antitrust Violations
The European Commission has initiated an antitrust investigation targeting Corning over potential anticompetitive practices in its agreements related to the supply of cover glass for electronic devices.
Corning is a global leader in glass manufacturing, providing materials for a wide range of industrial and consumer applications. One of its flagship products is Gorilla Glass, a popular choice for many leading smartphone manufacturers, including Apple.
While Corning’s Gorilla Glass is known for its exceptional resistance to damage, the EU is now questioning the company’s methods of maintaining its market position. The investigation centers around whether Corning may have engaged in practices that unfairly limit competition.
According to the Commission, there are concerns that Corning has potentially violated Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position in the market.
The Commission has outlined several specific practices that are under scrutiny:
- Exclusive Sourcing Obligations: Corning may have required OEMs to source most, if not all, of their Alkali-AS glass needs exclusively from Corning. This could restrict the ability of mobile phone manufacturers to choose alternative glass suppliers, limiting competition.
- Exclusivity Rebates: Corning allegedly offered rebates to OEMs that complied with the exclusive sourcing agreements. These rebates, tied to exclusivity, could create an unfair market advantage by incentivizing OEMs to stick with Corning instead of exploring competitive options.
- English Clauses: In certain contracts, Corning included clauses that required OEMs to inform the company of any competitive offers. Corning then had the opportunity to match those offers, further entrenching its market position.
The Commission is concerned that these practices may have had far-reaching consequences. By locking OEMs and finishers into exclusive agreements, Corning could have effectively shut out rival glass manufacturers from large portions of the market.
The EU has, however, stressed that the opening of a formal investigation does not imply guilt, but rather initiates a thorough examination of the case.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
Other articles in the category: News
The Super Mario Galaxy Movie Arrives on PVOD on May 19th
The Super Mario Galaxy Movie will then be released on 4K Ultra HD and Blu-ray on June 16th, 2026.
The U.S. Mint Put Steve Jobs on a Dollar Coin and It Vanished Instantly
The U.S. Mint’s latest release in the American Innovation $1 Coin series, featuring Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, debuted yesterday and essentially sold out right away. The California-themed coins were offered in 25-coin rolls and 100-coin bags but are now listed as unavailable on the official U.S. Mint website. The 25-coin rolls were originally priced at...
One of those accusations sound like they did anything wrong.
EU proving they only know how to kill businesses and innovation.
All 3 practices listed above may not be palatable to some but I don’t see Corning forcing anybody to accept the terms. It’s the business interest and profit that motivate other side to accept those terms. They are free to reject the obligation to source the majority of their glass needs from Corning and to try to get it from someone else. They may have to pay more or get inferior quality but no one is preventing them from looking for alternatives.
With exclusivity rebates Corning is awarding customer loyalty. They are entitled to give price breaks to whomever they see fit, for whatever reason; they may just like the customer or might be trying to acquire the new one by offering price breaks as a welcome gesture. Again, the customer is not forced into exclusive agreements, they are free to explore the other options from the competition. If they find them more attractive, they are free to switch to another supplier. Unless they’ve already signed binding contract with Corning, which they did presumably out of their own business interests and not because they were forced to.
And what is wrong with trying to keep the customer by asking for an opportunity to match the competition’s offer? If that is a contract clause, it may be seen as a forced obligation but nobody forced the customer to accept that obligation by signing the contract in the first place.
One thing is fighting the unfair business practices of actively undermining the competition but this seems more like a part of a trend to punish the most successful companies for being more successful than the rest.